Findings and Recommendations
100 findings
Any United States citizen, who is a resident of California, at least 18 years of age and not in prison or on parole for conviction of a felony, may register to vote. A registered voter, also known as an elector, must be a resident of an election precinct at least 15 days prior to an election in order to vote in a given precinct. (Elections Code EC §321)
Related Recommendations (1)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
Under the Elections Code, residence for voting purposes means a person’s domicile. The statute explains that ‘domicile’ means: ...that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only one domicile. EC§349
Related Recommendations (1)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
If a person has more than one residence, the person must choose which will be the designated domicile. If a party has two residences, that will be esteemed his domicile which he himself selects or deems to be his home, or which appears to be the center of his affairs. Chambers v. Hathaway (1921) 187 Cal. 104, 105
Related Recommendations (4)
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
Responsibility for review of the Supervisors’ travel reimbursement claims be formally transferred from the Clerk of the Board to the Auditor’s Office, and that: a. reimbursement claim forms be revised to indicate this change in oversight responsibility, and b. that the Auditor be diligent in enforcing the 2008 BOS Travel Policy including expense documentation. (Findings 3-6, 34, 35, 42, 43)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
Election Code §2031 sets up two rebuttable presumptions in determining domicile: your domicile is where you have a homeowner’s exemption and the principal address on your driver’s license. However, a domicile need not be an ordinary living space, but must have a fixed location. It could be a street corner, a boat, a truck, or under a bridge; homeless people do not lose their citizenship rights.
Related Recommendations (4)
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
Responsibility for review of the Supervisors’ travel reimbursement claims be formally transferred from the Clerk of the Board to the Auditor’s Office, and that: a. reimbursement claim forms be revised to indicate this change in oversight responsibility, and b. that the Auditor be diligent in enforcing the 2008 BOS Travel Policy including expense documentation. (Findings 3-6, 34, 35, 42, 43)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
A person may register by mail. Registration forms are available at county libraries, post offices, city halls, offices of Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Social Services, and on the internet at Secretary of State’s website. There is also a Federal form available that is accepted by all states.
Related Recommendations (3)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
Responsibility for review of the Supervisors’ travel reimbursement claims be formally transferred from the Clerk of the Board to the Auditor’s Office, and that: a. reimbursement claim forms be revised to indicate this change in oversight responsibility, and b. that the Auditor be diligent in enforcing the 2008 BOS Travel Policy including expense documentation. (Findings 3-6, 34, 35, 42, 43)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
Since January 1, 2006, as required by HAVA, the Registrar validates new registrations by running the registrant’s information through a statewide database. Registrations prior to January 1, 2006 are not checked through the database so long as they continue to vote in general elections.
Related Recommendations (4)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
Responsibility for review of the Supervisors’ travel reimbursement claims be formally transferred from the Clerk of the Board to the Auditor’s Office, and that: a. reimbursement claim forms be revised to indicate this change in oversight responsibility, and b. that the Auditor be diligent in enforcing the 2008 BOS Travel Policy including expense documentation. (Findings 3-6, 34, 35, 42, 43)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
After you register, your identity and current domicile address will be confirmed and the information entered into the statewide voter database. To verify identity you must supply a driver’s license/California ID number or the last four digits of your Social Security number. If you do not have the above, you will be issued a unique voter identification number by the State valid only for voting. If your documents do not have your current domicile address, you may be 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report required to provide additional proof of residency such as a homeowner’s tax exemption or file a sworn affidavit.
Related Recommendations (3)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
Since January 1, 2006 there is also an ongoing updating of records for all voters. The Registrar’s Office gets notice from: • DMV if voter submits change of address; • Registrars if voter registers elsewhere in California; • County Public Health Dept and State Health and Human Services of deaths; • Post Office if sample or absentee ballots are returned undeliverable.
Related Recommendations (3)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
All of these notices are run against the voter registration lists to keep them current.
Related Recommendations (1)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
The Registrar’s Office under certain circumstances will either cancel or inactivate a registration: • If a voter notifies the Registrar that they are moving out of county, the Mendocino County registration is cancelled. • If the Registrar receives notice of new registration in another county or out of state, this County’s registration is cancelled. • If the Registrar receives indirect notice from another agency that voter moved, the registration will be inactivated. • If the voter remains inactive for two (2) federal general elections, the registration will be cancelled.
Related Recommendations (1)
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
At the time of registration, voters may specify a political party affiliation or decline to state any affiliation. In the 2008 presidential primary, voters who had not registered with one of the six qualified parties (Democratic, Republican, American Independent, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom) were allowed to request a ballot to vote in the party primary of either the Democratic Party or American Independent Party, as those two parties had rules allowing party affiliation on Election Day. Otherwise, unaffiliated voters could vote only on the State ballot propositions. Who Can Hold Office?
Related Recommendations (1)
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
Elected Offices: A candidate’s application must state their residence address, which is verified through the county clerk’s office as their domicile. A candidate must be a registered voter in the district for which they are running. In some cases, there is a residency requirement greater than the 15-day minimum to register in a given precinct. For example, a candidate for County Supervisor must reside in the precinct for 30 days prior to filing the application for candidacy.
Related Recommendations (3)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
There are candidate filing requirements aside from residency specific to each office. The Registrar’s office prepares a candidate’s handbook for each election with all of the requirements.
Related Recommendations (3)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
Appointed Offices: The appointing power determines the requirements for office. Generally, appointed officeholders with discretionary authority must be residents of the district in which they serve. Residency requirements are less common for appointees who serve only in a consulting or advisory capacity.
Related Recommendations (2)
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
If, after election or appointment, an official moves their domicile out of the representation area, Government Code §1770 specifies that the office shall be considered vacant. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Related Recommendations (3)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
In the case of elected school officials, Education Code §5091(a) provides that whenever a vacancy occurs whether by resignation, or by the official leaving the district, the district’s governing board must within 60 days of the vacancy order an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy. Voting: Who, Where, When, and How
Related Recommendations (3)
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
Vote-by-Mail: Historically Absentee Ballots were reserved for voters who were unable to get to their precinct polling place on Election Day. In 2007, AB1243 officially changed the name “Absentee Ballot” to “Vote-by-Mail Ballot.” Increasingly, voters are encouraged to vote by mail rather than in person.
Related Recommendations (2)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
While any registered voter may Vote-by-Mail in California, in many precincts they are required to do so: • If a polling place has less than 250 or more than 1000 registered voters, the voters are automatically put on the Vote-by-Mail list. • If a precinct’s polling place cannot accommodate disabled voters, the precinct will either be consolidated with a nearby precinct that is accessible to the disabled or switched to Vote-by- Mail. • Shortage of trained precinct poll workers may also cause a precinct to be switched to Vote-by- Mail.
Related Recommendations (3)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
and 34-36) 5. Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36) 6. the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. 6/30/2008
In the 2008 presidential primary election, 201 of Mendocino County’s 235 precincts were Vote- by-Mail.
Related Recommendations (3)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
and 34-36) 5. Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36) 6. the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. 6/30/2008
To vote by mail, you must apply to your county elections office for a Vote-by-Mail Ballot at least seven days before Election Day. You can use the form on the Sample Ballot booklet you receive in the mail or send your request in writing to your county elections office. If you reside in a designated Vote-by-Mail precinct you automatically receive your ballot by mail.
Related Recommendations (4)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
and 34-36) 5. Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36) 6. the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. 6/30/2008
Currently in Mendocino County 34,074 of 46,102 (74%) of the registered voters are Vote-by- Mail. This is consistent with the statewide trend to Vote-by-Mail especially in rural counties. The counties of Alpine and Sierra in California, have switched 100 percent of their voters to mail-in ballots. The state of Oregon has been using only mail-in ballots since 1998.
Related Recommendations (4)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
After processing your Vote-by-Mail application, the proper ballot type will be sent to you. You mark your choices on the ballot, put it into the official envelope provided and seal it. Place the proper postage on the envelope and sign the outside of the envelope where directed.
Related Recommendations (4)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
You may return the Vote-by-Mail ballot by: • mailing through U.S. Postal Service to the Mendocino County Elections office; • delivering in person to elections office within your county; or on election day to any polling place. • authorizing an allowable third party to deliver the ballot to any polling place within the County or to the County Elections Office. The authorized third party may be your spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, or a person residing in the same household as you. Your authorization must be in writing and signed by you.
Related Recommendations (3)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
Voting in Person: Upon entry to the polling place, the voter’s name is checked against the precinct’s rolls and the voter signs the list.
Related Recommendations (4)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)
If the voter requires assistance, EC §14282(a) requires that the voter may, upon arrival at a polling place, make a sworn statement that they are unable to mark the ballot without 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report assistance. Election officials will then allow the voter to designate up to two persons to assist them in voting. The designated assistants may not be the voter’s employer or agent of the employer nor an officer or agent of the union of which the voter is a member.
Related Recommendations (2)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
If the polling place is inaccessible to a physically handicapped voter, EC §14282(c) provides that, the voter may vote in an accessible location as near as possible to the polling place. A precinct board member shall take a regular ballot to that person, qualify that person to vote, and return the voted ballot to the polling place.
Related Recommendations (2)
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
Mendocino County still uses paper ballots. Electronic machines are available for use by disabled voters or others upon request. Every polling place has a voting machine.
Related Recommendations (1)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
On Election Day, if the voter is in line before the polls close, they have the right to cast their ballot.
Related Recommendations (2)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
The voter who makes a mistake or spoils their ballot, has the right prior to casting the ballot to exchange the spoiled ballot for a new one.
Related Recommendations (2)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
If voter’s name does not appear on the voting rolls, the voter has the right to cast a provisional ballot.
Related Recommendations (1)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
When a voter checks in at the polling place to cast their ballot, a poll worker may challenge the voter’s eligibility. Only a poll worker can make the challenge--not a poll watcher or voter.
Related Recommendations (1)
The County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • Maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • Coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • Requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.
If challenged, the voter will be allowed to cast their ballot, but the challenge will be noted on the roll, the voter given a provisional ballot which will be placed in a sealed, signed provisional ballot envelope for later review by the Registrar.
No recommendations for this finding
Suspected illegal or fraudulent activity may be reported to any local elections official or to the Secretary of State’s Office. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Does Every Vote Count?
Related Recommendations (3)
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
Processing Mail-In Votes: When a completed Vote-by-Mail ballot is received in the County Elections Office, it is date stamped and scanned in using the bar code on the return envelope. The signature on the Vote-by-Mail ballot’s return envelope will be compared to the signature on the voter registration card to determine that it was completed by the authorized voter. To preserve the secrecy of the ballot, after signature has been verified, the ballot is separated from the envelope so that the ballot becomes anonymous.
Related Recommendations (6)
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April
The correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)
the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36)
the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34-36) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and 1 See http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/hr/cgi-bin/specs.pl. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.
and 34-36) 5. Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36) 6. the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. 6/30/2008
The verification process is labor intensive and requires ample space for the election workers and the voting materials. Each step of the verification process is conducted by two employees of the Registrar’s office. At election time, the Registrar borrows County employees from other departments and hires temporary help on an hourly basis to help process ballots.
Related Recommendations (3)
the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36)
the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34-36) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and 1 See http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/hr/cgi-bin/specs.pl. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.
and 34-36) 5. Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36) 6. the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. 6/30/2008
While Mendocino County has sufficient staff to process mail-in ballots, the workspace is cramped and the secured storage space is limited.
Related Recommendations (3)
the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36)
the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34-36) 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and 1 See http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/hr/cgi-bin/specs.pl. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.
and 34-36) 5. Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36) 6. the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. 6/30/2008
Avoidable reasons for disqualification of a Vote-by-Mail ballot: • No Signature: Vote-by-mail ballots that do not have a valid signature on the return envelope are not counted. • Wrong Signature: The signature on the return envelope of vote-by-mail ballots is compared with the signature on file. If the signatures do not match, the ballot will not be counted. If a voter’s signature has changed, the voter may request a new registration form to update their signature. Such update must be completed by the registration deadline for the election. • Delivery without Authorization: If the voter wishes to designate an allowable third party to return the voter’s completed ballot on Election Day, the voter must designate the third party in writing and sign the authorization on the return envelope. Eligible designees are: spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister or person residing in the same household as the voter. Without the proper authorization, the ballot will not be counted. • Delivery after Deadline: Any vote-by-mail ballot, whether submitted by mail or in person, that is received by the elections office or polling place within the county after 8 PM on Election Day will not be counted.
No recommendations for this finding
If a mail-in ballot is rejected because of no signature or signature that doesn’t match the registration, the registered voter is notified by letter and may request a new ballot at least seven days prior to election. The rejected ballot is not opened, but put into a tray which is color coded by precinct.
No recommendations for this finding
Valid ballots are also sorted into trays by precinct. The trays are put into locked storage to await processing through the counting machine. The availability of secure storage for election materials is limited. Counting of mail-in ballots may begin seven days prior to Election Day.
No recommendations for this finding
Registered voters may go on-line to the County Registrar’s website prior to Election Day to check whether their Vote-by-Mail ballot has been received.
No recommendations for this finding
In Mendocino County’s 2008 presidential primary, nearly 18% percent of Vote-by-Mail voters waited until Election Day to turn their ballots in at polling places. Because of the verification process required on mail-in ballots, those received on Election Day are set aside for later processing to allow the tallying of ballots coming in from the precincts.
No recommendations for this finding
Processing on Election Day: After the polls close on Election Day, the Registrar’s Office sends out teams to pick up the ballots and voting machines from each polling place within the County. Some polling places cover more than one precinct. Upon arrival at the Registrar’s 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Office the ballots and electronic machines are checked in, verifying that all ballots issued are accounted for as having been voted, damaged or unused. The voted ballots are grouped by precinct and scanned. The scanning process creates a paper tape record and an electronic record. Any un-scannable ballots are set aside to be processed by hand by at least two election officials. The entire counting process takes place in a secure room with large plate glass windows through which members of the press and the general public may observe. The counting room is crowded with machines, election workers and stacks of ballot boxes.
No recommendations for this finding
After the in-person votes have been tallied, the Elections Office returns to the mail-in votes that remain to be counted. In the 2008 presidential primary, 4,023 of 22,508 (almost one-fifth of the total) mail-in votes were submitted on Election Day.
No recommendations for this finding
Processing of Provisional Ballots: Once the mail-in votes have been processed, the Registrar turns to the provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are issued whenever a voter: • is not on the rolls, • is not at their designated polling place, • is not able to establish their identity.
No recommendations for this finding
In the 2008 presidential primary, the Elections Office received 607 provisional ballots, which had to be processed manually. Of those received, 52 were rejected after review by the Registrar. As in the case of Vote-by-Mail ballots, the voter signature on the provisional ballot envelope is checked against the Registrar’s database to verify the identity and eligibility of the voter before the ballot is opened and counted.
Related Recommendations (1)
Mendocino County Sheriff investigate the use of asset forfeiture funds for the bar coding system, refrigerator/freezer replacement and a generator for back-up power. (Findings 45, 48, 49). Comments The Mendocino County Jail is not a great place to be, but the facility offers many programs that may make an inmate less likely to return. Especially notable, is the encouragement by staff that inmates utilize the opportunity to achieve academic and life skills. These programs may reduce recidivism. The correctional officers and their staff are maintaining a safe and functional environment for the staff and inmates. The MCJ operates under the same minimal budget as other County departments.
Certification of the Election Results: The Registrar has a total of 28 days to complete the canvas of all ballots whether cast in person, by mail, or on a provisional ballot. The certified results are filed with the Secretary of State and are published.
No recommendations for this finding
The Registrar’s Office is required to secure and retain all voted ballots for a period of 22 months after a general election, for six months after a local election. The security and retention requirements imposed by the Secretary of State severely reduce the workspace available for the other activities of the Registrar’s Office.
No recommendations for this finding
Enforcement Protections against Fraud: When registering to vote or when filing to be a candidate for office, the party declares under penalty of perjury that the information on the application is true. The Registrar’s office will turn suspected cases of fraud over to the Sheriff, District Attorney’s office, or any other affected agency. The Registrar is not the enforcing authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
A private citizen may report suspected illegal or fraudulent activity to any local elections official or to the Secretary of State’s Office and may also pursue it through civil court.
Related Recommendations (1)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The revised policy makes no allowance for reimbursement of more than two overnight stays in a week and limits hotel reimbursement to weeks with a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors’ meeting. Lodging receipts are required. Meals associated with overnight stays are not reimbursed. Current mileage rate is $.505/mile. For 2008, increased County costs might include up to 11% pension, 4% COLA, 4% deferred compensation and Medicare/Social Security in excess of 7%. Supervisor costs will vary. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Related Recommendations (1)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
Regarding reimbursement for travel expenses related to official county business, the 2008 Travel Policy defines County Business in Section I General Policy, (A) (B) and (C): A. Official Business Official business of the Board of Supervisors includes but is not limited to attendance at regular Board meetings, special Board meetings, Board standing committee meetings, Board special assignment committee meetings, Board of Equalization meetings, and other County business. B. Reimbursable Expenditures The types of occurrences that qualify a member of the Board of Supervisors to receive reimbursement of expenses relating to travel, meals, lodging, and other actual and necessary expenses include the following:
Related Recommendations (1)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
The Grand Jury notes that the clause in Section I (A) that defines types of allowable county business concludes with the statement “…but not limited to…” and is, in fact, open-ended. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Related Recommendations (1)
When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, the Supervisors: a. eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52) b. require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c. approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50). Comments The 2007 Grand Jury is indebted to the numerous current and former Mendocino County officials, and to both seated and former Supervisors who contributed to this report with their candid responses during lengthy interviews. Testimony overwhelmingly rejects the contention that it has been common practice to claim commute mileage as a “per diem” when miles are not driven and no lodging expense is incurred. While it has been the auditor-approved practice of some Supervisors to claim commute miles in lieu of occasional lodging for back-to-back meetings, lodging receipts have always been required by the Auditor’s Office and were routinely collected by the COB’s Office until 1999. With two notable exceptions, in-depth review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors raised questions. Most of these were quickly resolved by referencing calendars or other backup documents. The purpose of extensive weekend travel by the Fifth District Supervisor remains essentially unsubstantiated; the Third District Supervisor promptly acknowledged that he might have misinterpreted the Travel Policies in place in 2007 as allowing him to collect mileage to offset the cost of his 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report second residence in Willits where he spends some work nights. Only the Fourth District Supervisor persists in defending mileage reimbursement she claimed as a “per diem”, when no miles were driven and no lodging cost was incurred. The revised BOS Travel Policy took effect in January 2008. The document discusses, though not conclusively, what constitutes “county business” and what does not. It specifies what documentation is required for reimbursement of actual expenses. It provides Supervisors with the option of either documenting their actual in-county mileage (including commute miles) or receiving a taxable stipend in an amount calculated to reflect the size of each district and its distance from Ukiah. Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize mileage. The new policy addresses several important issues. It offers Supervisors a way to avoid the need for detailed record keeping, if they wish to do so. It cleanly separates mileage reimbursement from reimbursement for allowable hotel stays, imposes a cap of two overnights per week, and limits the stays to weeks in which there is a scheduled BOS meeting. A potential added cost of the new policy is that whereas mileage reimbursement is not taxed, the optional stipend is fully taxable and might bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors. Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for a larger retirement benefit and/or a larger Social Security payment. A perfect, one-size-fits-all BOS Travel Policy is likely to remain elusive. The stress and hazards of long-distance travel are inescapable. The fact that parity was not achievable under the old travel policy is regrettable; however, it in no way justifies the documented falsification of expense reports by the Fourth District Supervisor to claim mileage reimbursement when she stayed in Ukiah and incurred little or no expense either for travel or for lodging. The request for repayment was reiterated in a letter from the District Attorney to the Fourth District Supervisor dated March 24, 2008. No response was received by the specified April 7, 2008 deadline. Questions remain as to whether the new stipend option will level the economic playing field for Supervisors in the different Districts. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that elusive goal may be to require travel logs and receipts, as is common practice in government and most private business settings. While this alternative continues to draw resistance from a few Supervisors, the Grand Jury strongly concurs with those who support it as the only fair and accurate way to document legitimate business expenses for reimbursement at taxpayer expense. Another possibility is to offer the option of a county car in place of the current travel stipends. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Required Reponses County Executive Officer (Findings 1-7, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41-43, 45, 47- 52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Auditor-Controller (Findings 3, 4, 10-17, 24, 27, 41-43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). District Attorney (Findings 19-22). Clerk of the Board (Findings 3-6, 41-43; Recommendation 4). Board of Supervisors (collective response) (Findings 1-7, 24, 29-32, 43, 45, 47-52; Recommendations 4 and 5). Current First District Supervisor (Findings 32-33, 35-36; Recommendation 5). Current Second District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 35, 36; Recommendation 5). Current Third District Supervisor (Findings 32, 33, 36, 44, 45; Recommendations 3 and 5). Current Fourth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50; Recommendations 2 and 5). Current Fifth District Supervisor (Findings 3, 32, 33, 37-40; Recommendations 1 and 5). The following documents are available with the electronic version of report on the Grand Jury website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 2006-07 Grand Jury report: Are You Getting What You Pay For? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy (June 7, 2007)—Published with responses Travel Policy in effect prior to June 2007 2008 Travel Policy Text of Penal Code Section 932 Mendocino County District Attorney’s response to PC 932 Order filed by the 2006-07 Grand Jury 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report BYZANTIUM BY THE BAY County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan June 17, 2008 Summary A Grand Jury investigation found that the County of Mendocino has failed, since 2001, to administer licensing of Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals (VHR/SUR) in the Town of Mendocino as required by the Mendocino Town Plan (MTP). The MTP and the related Implementation Plan (IP) constitute the Mendocino Town Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996. This is the legal document governing all land use and development in the Town of Mendocino. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted a staff review and update of VHR/SUR license data. Staff determined that 53 VHR/SURs licenses are permitted by the MTP and that attrition had reduced the number of available units, leaving 19 licenses available. The BOS concurred with staff that the minimal development in Mendocino did not merit an application to the CCC to amend the MTP/LUP. The BOS directed staff to update the MTP Tables that list licensed VHRs and SURs and to allow license applicants on the chronological waiting list to proceed with their applications. Nine new licenses were issued. In response to political pressure, the BOS reluctantly established a Mendocino Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to explore and advise the County on five areas, including VHR/SUR licensing. As the name implies, a CAC is an advisory body with no legal authority to alter any County policy. The CAC submitted its report with recommendations that would eliminate VHRs in residentially zoned areas of the Town and significantly reduce the total number of VHR/SUR units. In December 2005, Planning staff advised the BOS that “…there are currently 23-30 fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents.
Evidence in dismissed cases can be returned to the owner. A court order is required to return certain evidence, such as marijuana, weapons, or any evidence obtained by search warrant. Mendocino County Courthouse Holdings Cells
No recommendations for this finding
On May 13, 2008, the Grand Jury visited the four Courthouse holding cells used to hold prisoners awaiting court hearings. They were found to be clean and in good working order.
No recommendations for this finding
One cell has a privacy screen between the toilet and sink for female inmates.
No recommendations for this finding
Each cell is equipped with a fire sprinkler.
No recommendations for this finding
Prisoners who are transported and held must be kept separate according to the color designation of their coveralls.
No recommendations for this finding
When there is a jury trial, the presiding judge may order that the inmate wear street clothes, rather than jail colored coveralls. A prisoner changes from the colored coveralls to street clothes at the jail.
No recommendations for this finding
There is an attorney-inmate interview room in the holding cell area.
No recommendations for this finding
All prisoners are transported by correctional officers, who are mostly working on overtime. There must be more than one officer if there are five or more general population inmates being transported.
No recommendations for this finding
Prisoners are usually in the holdings cells for about 30 minutes before their court hearing, although they may remain there longer.
No recommendations for this finding
A small area in the ceiling at the end of the hall in the holding cell facility is deteriorating.
No recommendations for this finding
Mirrors are used to monitor the hall area, but direct visual observation of inmates is required at least twice every half hour. The correctional officer cannot leave the holding cell area while inmates are present.
No recommendations for this finding
Behavioral improvement and regular attendance are top priorities. Core subjects are taught in the morning and electives in the afternoon with an emphasis on fostering student engagement with the curriculum.
No recommendations for this finding
Some students attend Regional Occupations Programs (ROP) at Fort Bragg High School.
No recommendations for this finding
Lighthouse students must have written permission from their principal and from the Fort Bragg High School principal to attend sports events or other high school activities.
No recommendations for this finding
The budget for Lighthouse was described as sufficient to meet the students’ instructional needs.
No recommendations for this finding
The School Resource Officer is rarely on this campus.
No recommendations for this finding
Most students are bilingual but many parents are not. The ability to speak Spanish is useful in communicating both with students and with their parents.
No recommendations for this finding
Most staff who were interviewed stated that the students in Lighthouse this year have been more challenging than in previous years. Twelve of thirteen current students identify either with the Norteños or Súrtenos; gang affiliation (and ‘wannabes’) is an increasing problem on-campus and in the Fort Bragg Community. Findings about Noyo Continuation High School
No recommendations for this finding
Noyo Continuation High School (Noyo) serves students 16-18 years of age who fall behind on high school credits, need a more structured learning environment, or who have jobs or other responsibilities that interfere with traditional high school schedules. Students attend four and one-half hours per day. Noyo has two classrooms, with a maximum enrollment of thirty students and shares a fitness room with Lighthouse School. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
No recommendations for this finding
The 27 students currently enrolled at Noyo are working on accruing the necessary credits and passing scores on the California High School Exit Exam in order to graduate.
No recommendations for this finding
Noyo students tend to stay because of the individual attention, small class size, flexible scheduling and the “feeling of a family unit.”
No recommendations for this finding
Two fully credentialed teachers share the teaching responsibilities. One teaches U.S. History, English, Government, Science and Fine Arts; the other teaches Economics, Math, PE, World History and Technology. Instruction is highly individualized and self-paced.
No recommendations for this finding
All seniors are required to develop a Career Portfolio as their senior project. It must include a resume, letters of recommendation, job experiences, and sample job applications in areas of interest. Students share their portfolios in a PowerPoint presentation to the class as part of their final exam.
No recommendations for this finding
In 2006-07, eight of the students were employed and received credit for work experience that was monitored by a work experience coordinator. At the time of the Grand Jury’s site visit in 2008, one Noyo student was earning work experience credit. What is Missing at the Alternative Schools?
No recommendations for this finding
Students and teachers in north county and coastal Continuation and Community Day Schools receive significantly fewer resources from County agencies than those who live in the Ukiah Valley. Teachers lack the stable leadership and peer support available to their inland colleagues.
No recommendations for this finding
In response to Grand Jury questioning, some alternative school personnel reported a lack of support from the Fort Bragg District Office; others described the support as satisfactory.
No recommendations for this finding
A single Juvenile Probation Officer is responsible for the entire coast.
No recommendations for this finding
An AODP (Alcohol and Other Drugs) program that was offered at Shelter Cove was discontinued due to loss of funding. Willits and Fort Bragg share an Intervention Specialist who has recently established a weekly “Men’s Group” for Lighthouse and Noyo students and individual counseling for one Shelter Cove student. The site administrator strongly supports maintaining and expanding these services.
No recommendations for this finding
The professional mental health, alcohol and drug counseling services offered in Ukiah, are largely inaccessible to students on the coast.
No recommendations for this finding
A school bond that was passed approximately four years ago allocated funds for a basketball/sport court on the Lighthouse School grounds and a half basketball court at the Shelter Cove site. At the time of the Grand Jury site visit, the District had not yet developed these sorely needed facilities.
No recommendations for this finding
A high student turnover rate, irregular attendance, family resistance, and district resources all contribute to difficulty in arranging for educational and/or psychological evaluation of alternative school students.
No recommendations for this finding
Despite serving probationary youth, FBUSD Alternative Schools have no special security measures. They rely on calling 911.
No recommendations for this finding
Perimeter cameras are installed at Fort Bragg High School, but have not yet been installed at any of the Alternative Schools. Lighthouse and Noyo hold two 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report emergency drills each year and Shelter Cove Middle School holds monthly emergency drills as required by law, with an emphasis on fire and earthquake drills. Lockdown drills have not been a priority. Classrooms are not equipped with inside safety locks. Some windows lack coverings that would shield students from view in the case of an emergency. Findings about Mendocino County Office of Education (MCOE)
No recommendations for this finding
MCOE operates a range of programs to serve students in need of alternative education. These include: • Court Schools • Community Schools • County Community Day Schools • Independent Study • A CalSAFE Program at Ukiah High School for pregnant and parenting teens and their children
No recommendations for this finding
MCOE programs serve approximately 250 alternative school students at any one time and more than 500 over the course of a year at 13 sites, primarily in the Ukiah Valley. MCOE provides no alternative education programs on the coast and minimal services in Willits.
No recommendations for this finding
An MCOE Resource Specialist works full-time in the MCOE alternative education classrooms with Special Education students who are on IEPs.
No recommendations for this finding
All teachers are fully credentialed and working in their area of certification. They also have either CLAD or the SDIAE certification to work with English Language Learners.6
No recommendations for this finding
All MCOE paraprofessionals who serve as classroom instructional aides hold associate of arts degrees or have passed proficiency tests. Several are bilingual.
No recommendations for this finding
The staff meets weekly with counselors, probation officers, therapists and others to discuss students, discipline and academic progress.
No recommendations for this finding
Due to the high adult-student ratio at the sites, there are few gang related problems or other violent incidents.
No recommendations for this finding
State of the art video conferencing and high speed networking is available at MCOE for networking with teachers throughout the County.
No recommendations for this finding
Collaboration between Mendocino County Health Services, the Sheriff Department, Nuestra Casa, Youth Project, AODP and Juvenile Probation results in numerous services to the students in the MCOE Alternative Schools in Ukiah. Most of these services are not offered in district operated community day schools in other parts of the County.
No recommendations for this finding
Juveniles who reside out of the Ukiah Valley area are eligible to attend many of the MCOE programs, but due to transportation and time factors they are essentially inaccessible. Information on Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) certification or Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) certification is readily available on several websites. 6/30/2008 2007/2008 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
No recommendations for this finding
Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency operates AODP. Services for juveniles are funded by grants. No County funds are specifically earmarked for AODP youth programs.
No recommendations for this finding
Most AODP grants focus on the County’s more populated areas, particularly the Ukiah Valley. Some grants are written collaboratively with schools or other agencies. This is rarely the case in north Mendocino County and coastal communities.
No recommendations for this finding
AODP staff members provide small group and individual counseling for juveniles. Services include prevention, intervention and treatment. Five staff members are assigned to programs in Ukiah and one to Anderson Valley. Willits and Fort Bragg share an Intervention Specialist.
No recommendations for this finding
The MCOE Superintendent expressed a desire for all superintendents in the County to engage with MCOE in developing and expanding resources for district-operated alternative school programs.
No recommendations for this finding
FBUSD and other local school districts are co-signers with MCOE to the June 30, 2006 Triennial Plan to provide coordinated services to expelled youth.7 The Plan recognizes the gaps that exist in service availability to small rural school districts and proposes strategies to address the gaps at the district, regional and county level. The current Triennial Plan is up for review and revision by June 30, 2009.
No recommendations for this finding